ITT: how to tell if someone is really a /his/torian or not
>they think the crusades were super evil christian imperialism
>they speak in memes and get hilariously angry at half the people in any thread involving commies or nazis or religion
>they post made up charts or several fabricated quotations when asked for evidence
>they cite youtube videos as evidence
>>1127581
>they post on /his/
>>1127613
shit
>>1127587
weren't they?
>they think the Germans were the bad guys in WWI
JUST
>>1127581
They don't know what you mean by
>
>
>
>Hitler saved the economy/Nazis were good before 1939
>I'm not /pol/ but how come *holocaust denial intensifies*
>The Roman Empire collapsed in 476 A.D.
>Native Americans were peaceful nature folk
>Africans didn't develop any civilization of note
>Ancient Egyptians/Cleopatra were black africans
>Hannibal was a black african
>Mongols were very tolerant
>Nazis dindu nuffin
>The atomic bombings of Japan were unjustified
>The European "Dark Ages"
>"Here's a postcolonial view on 'x' "
>Vikings were amazing warriors
>Muh katanas
Generally these are my filters for shit tier history "buffs"
>>1127760
>>Vikings were amazing warriors
But they were.
>they think the West and Western culture is a definable historical concept
>>1127587
>no no they were entirely defensive even though these territories had been Muslim for 400 years
>>1127742
>he believes that the holocaust existed
>>1127760
Yep pretty much
In general any rose tinted romantic view of the past disqualifies you from being not only a historian but also participating in the social sciences.
Sure you can make historical judgement based on personal opinions and sentiment, but don't expect such views to be taken seriously.
Either one is a materialist or he is not, and I think this disqualifies people like Spengler, Nietzsche or Rousseau from making purely historical judgments.
>>1127780
No they were not, vikings more often than not got their ass kicked when they fought a real army. They weren't any better than any other soldiers in Europe at the time.
>>1127780
They really weren't any more spectacular than any other warrior of their time. Vikings were by the definition of the word, pirates and raiders. Not a professionally trained force.
>tfw intimidated by the sound judgement and intelligent opinions of /his/
>>1127792
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
>reddit is a good place for discussion and r/history isn't that bad
>>1127581
>When discussing something, some poster starts quoting scripture
>>1127867
/his/ has neither sound judgement, nor intelligent opinions, nor is a history board.
>>1127760
based
>>1127760
>muh katanas
Keks where had
>>1127594
does this confirm one's status as a /his/torian or is it proof that they aren't?
>>1127739
confirmed best (most dank) criterion
>>1127788
>shit, half our country was conquered by foreigners
>I guess we have a time limit of X years to reconquer or else we're the aggressors.
>>1127795
>purely historical judgements
No such thing exists, everyone has a bias. All history is narrative, historicity is the interpretation of sources to a certain perspective.
>/r/askhistorians
>he categorizes historical events/persons as "good" and "evil"
>>1129661
t. Marxist
>>1129682
what
>>1128277
native american reconquista when?
>>1128277
Crusaders were also foreigners
